Chapter 7 examines the detrimental effects that polarization between different groups can have on individuals, groups, communities, and societies. The book thereby contrasts itself with positive perspectives on polarization and conflict in society. One important aspect that may start important instances of group polarization is how to respond to dissenting opinions, and the affective and defensive responses dissenters may trigger. Fairness concerns come with an important dark side. For example, people may go to great lengths to protect their views that they live in fair and just societies and that their group and culture are involved in what is morally right. Indeed, desperately wanting to be involved in what is morally pure can strengthen important aspects of group polarization in our modern society. This is especially the case when groups have clear group boundaries, involve some form of (authoritative or moral) direct leadership, and when group members think their tribe is fighting for a worthy moral cause. Thinking of individuals as members of other groups in abstract terms facilitates enemy thinking between different groups. People tend to adhere more to fairness principles when they act out of their own individual responsibilities than when they feel responsible to defend their group interests.

Chapter 3 sets out the functioning of the EAEU in terms of its institutional structure and decision-making. It is particularly focused on the Eurasian Economic Commission as the main regulatory body due to its alleged supranational character. This chapter challenges the idea of supranationality by uncovering the predominantly intergovernmental mode of operation not only of the EAEU as such, but also of the Commission, which has implications for legal order autonomy. Another focus of the chapter is the Court and its structure as the major institution relevant for legal order autonomy. The chapter analyses the history of its establishment and the rules regarding its formation raising the issue of independence of the judges and the institution as relevant for the Court’s ability to play a role in the formation of the autonomous legal order.

This chapter discusses – as a matter of comparative law, custom, arbitration rules, soft law and generally adopted practices – the roles and powers attributed to the chairperson and to the party-appointed arbitrators in tribunals composed of three members. The author first examines the evolution in the applicable standards of independence and impartiality with regard to presiding and party-appointed arbitrators; he then considers the express and implied powers bestowed upon, respectively, presiding and party-appointed arbitrators in the course of the proceedings, starting with the tribunal constitution process, addressing also the limits of permitted delegation of powers within tribunals, as well as the distinguishing characteristics of the function of the umpire in the legal systems that provide for it. In the last part of the chapter, the author focuses on the controversy as to the desirability of party-appointments in the contemporary law and practice of international arbitration.

This chapter takes the reader to the innermost chamber of the court: the deliberation room. There, the story untangles the maze of interactions that occur among the adjudicators as they finally decide the merits of the case. What commentators usually describe as the moment of truth is, in fact, a delicate dance of assertions and contestations, argument and counterargument, lunges and sidesteps. Amid the confrontation, judicial bureaucrats work staunchly and discreetly to guide the flow of the debate, broker compromises, and overcome stumbling blocks. The decisions and instructions that eventually emerge from deliberations may well be the truth – but a carefully constructed one. The deliberative practices of the various courts and tribunals, all described in this chapter, are more than simple logistical matters or mere conveyors of content. Rather, they have a crucial impact on the way adjudicators arrive at their decisions and, therefore, on the substantive outcomes of each dispute.